Well, I argued about a war that has been over for about 150 years. I think I'm winning!!!

That's nice dear.

One thing that always impresses me is how recent the Civil War actually was. I can still remember when there were living veterans. The media used to keep count. Thirty were left then ten then three hung in there for a long time. Then two then one guy from Texas who had been a drummer boy. It was on TV when he passed.

Shelby Foote used tell the story of when he visited Nathan Bedford Forrest's grand daughter. She got out the General's sword and allowed him to swing it over his head.

There is still plenty of shot and ball stuck in the sides of brick houses around here.

When Iraq War One happened I got out a napkin and drew out my predictions of what General Powell and Schwartzkoff were likely to do to my office buddies. I had a real good idea because they made no secret of their close study of the Civil War and in particular the tactics of Stonewall Jackson.. I was spot on.. Had the Genreal commanding the Iraqi Army been at all familiar with our Civil War they could have done better.

The crews of both the Hunley and the Monitor were recently buried.. Not more than a couple of years ago.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 03:27:51 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

If it meant the South expanding slavery into Latin America, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, tearing the nation apart and delaying Civil Rights and liberties by at least 100 years, I'd genocide them and feel no remorse.

I'm not saying the Union was perfect either, but they were sure of a heck a lot better than the South. I mean, hey, it's either us or them.

You do know there were still slaves in the North throughout the CW, right? New Jersey freed its last slave after the War ended. This idea that the Northern people/soldiers were these righteous warriors fighting to free slaves is revisionist nonsense. You tell your average yankee soldier that he was spending years away from home to go bleed out on some battlefield in Virgina to free african slaves and he would have thrown down his weapon and gone home. Slavery would have died a natural death before long. It didn't need a 4 year war that cost 600,000+ American lives to end it.

As for your genocide comment, I'll chalk that up to youthful exuberance/ignorance.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 03:44:02 PM by #1Sinner »

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

Well, I argued about a war that has been over for about 150 years. I think I'm winning!!!

That's nice dear.

One thing that always impresses me is how recent the Civil War actually was. I can still remember when there were living veterans. The media used to keep count. Thirty were left then ten then three hung in there for a long time. Then two then one guy from Texas who had been a drummer boy. It was on TV when he passed.

Shelby Foote used tell the story of when he visited Nathan Bedford Forrest's grand daughter. She got out the General's sword and allowed him to swing it over his head.

There is still plenty of shot and ball stuck in the sides of brick houses around here.

When Iraq War One happened I got out a napkin and drew out my predictions of what General Powell and Schwartzkoff were likely to do to my office buddies. I had a real good idea because they made no secret of their close study of the Civil War and in particular the tactics of Stonewall Jackson.. I was spot on.. Had the Genreal commanding the Iraqi Army been at all familiar with our Civil War they could have done better.

The crews of both the Hunley and the Monitor were recently buried.. Not more than a couple of years ago.

Are you aware that there are still 2 children of Civil War veterans still receiving pensions from the government? I read a story in late 2012 that they were both Confederate children, one from Tennessee and the other North Carolina.

I also saw a story yesterday about a British man who is the oldest in the country. He was born in July of 1903. That means he was about 6 months old when Lt. General James Longstreet passed away. I thought that was interesting to consider.

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

If it meant the South expanding slavery into Latin America, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, tearing the nation apart and delaying Civil Rights and liberties by at least 100 years, I'd genocide them and feel no remorse.

I'm not saying the Union was perfect either, but they were sure of a heck a lot better than the South. I mean, hey, it's either us or them.

You do know there were still slaves in the North throughout the CW, right? New Jersey freed its last slave after the War ended. This idea that the Northern people/soldiers were these righteous warriors fighting to free slaves is revisionist nonsense. You tell your average yankee soldier that he was spending years away from home to go bleed out on some battlefield in Virgina to free african slaves and he would have thrown down his weapon and gone home.

As for your genocide comment, I'll chalk that up to youthful exuberance/ignorance.

The economy of the South was totally dependent upon slave labor. Nothing close to that situation existed in the North.. Feudalism had it's day, time to move on.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

If it meant the South expanding slavery into Latin America, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, tearing the nation apart and delaying Civil Rights and liberties by at least 100 years, I'd genocide them and feel no remorse.

I'm not saying the Union was perfect either, but they were sure of a heck a lot better than the South. I mean, hey, it's either us or them.

You do know there were still slaves in the North throughout the CW, right? New Jersey freed its last slave after the War ended. This idea that the Northern people/soldiers were these righteous warriors fighting to free slaves is revisionist nonsense. You tell your average yankee soldier that he was spending years away from home to go bleed out on some battlefield in Virgina to free african slaves and he would have thrown down his weapon and gone home.

As for your genocide comment, I'll chalk that up to youthful exuberance/ignorance.

The economy of the South was totally dependent upon slave labor. Nothing close to that situation existed in the North.. Feudalism had it's day, time to move on.

It no longer existed in the North because of Industrialization, not because your average Northerner was any less racist then your average southerner.

I am a native northerner who now lives in the south. I can tell you for certain that even today there seems to be more racism up North then down here. Some of the jokes and slurs that were regular fare back home are nowhere to be heard here.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 03:47:48 PM by #1Sinner »

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

You do know there were still slaves in the North throughout the CW, right? New Jersey freed its last slave after the War ended.

Yup. Only difference is, the North didn't plan on expanding it to the level that the South wanted to. The North didn't have plans to make incursions into Latin America and enslave an potentially an entire continent. Rather, they just exploited poor immigrants in factories and plants. Both sides were clearly evil, but if it is a matter of choosing the lesser evil, I'd definitely choose the North over the South.

Quote

This idea that the Northern people/soldiers were these righteous warriors fighting to free slaves is revisionist nonsense.

I never said they were. Some may have been, I'm sure most of them were just fighting because there was a war that needed fighting. What matters is the end though. I can't even fathom how screwed up this hemisphere would be if the South had won.

Likewise, the idea that the South was just a group of peaceful farmer folks who were fighting solely for state rights with only a tiny percentage of their population owning slaves is revisionist nonsense too. The South wanted to expand it and even made it a clause in their Constitution that they had the right to imperialistically expand into Central and South America to spread the practice.

Quote

You tell your average yankee soldier that he was spending years away from home to go bleed out on some battlefield in Virgina to free african slaves and he would have thrown down his weapon and gone home.

Yet most of them didn't.

Quote

As for your genocide comment, I'll chalk that up to youthful exuberance/ignorance.

I'll chalk it up as common sense and self defense. I'd much rather the South go then my ancestors go.

I never said they were. Some may have been, I'm sure most of them were just fighting because there was a war that needed fighting. What matters is the end though. I can't even fathom how screwed up this hemisphere would be if the South had won.

Quote

Yes. Our huge Industrial/Military Complex, surveillance state that is beholden to trans-national corporations, starts wars for profit and oil and who has legalized infanticide is so much better then whatever the alternative would have been.

Well I screwed this formatting up.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 03:59:17 PM by #1Sinner »

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

Yes. Our huge Industrial/Military Complex, surveillance state that is beholden to trans-national corporations, starts wars for profit and oil and who has legalized infanticide is so much better then whatever the alternative would have been.

Actually, yes, it would have been. You were going to start wars for profit in Latin America to expand slavery. The South is in no position to complain about abortion when your own sex-ed system is the screwiest in the country, with Southern states having the highest teen pregnancy rates.

I never said they were. Some may have been, I'm sure most of them were just fighting because there was a war that needed fighting. What matters is the end though. I can't even fathom how screwed up this hemisphere would be if the South had won.

Quote

Yes. Our huge Industrial/Military Complex, surveillance state that is beholden to trans-national corporations, starts wars for profit and oil and who has legalized infanticide is so much better then whatever the alternative would have been.Well I screwed this formatting up.

Damn yankee!

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Yes. Our huge Industrial/Military Complex, surveillance state that is beholden to trans-national corporations, starts wars for profit and oil and who has legalized infanticide is so much better then whatever the alternative would have been.

Actually, yes, it would have been. You were going to start wars for profit in Latin America to expand slavery. The South is in no position to complain about abortion when your own sex-ed system is the screwiest in the country, with Southern states having the highest teen pregnancy rates.

Well I suppose we aren't going to see eye to eye on this so I wish you adieu, sir.

Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.

...growth was certainly on the post-war agenda. Confederate president Jefferson Davis made sure the Confederate constitution included the right to expand, and he filled his cabinet with men who thought similarly. He even hinted that the slave trade could be revived in "new acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande." During the Civil War, Confederate agents attempted to destabilize Mexico so that its territories would be easy to snatch up after the war. One rebel emissary to Mexico City, John T. Pickett, secretly fomented rebellion in several Mexican provinces with an eye to "the permanent possession of that beautiful country."

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Too bad he ignored the rest of the paragraph where all men are created equal can be found.

So, did he do anything to free Irish wage slaves from the Northern companies? Living on company land, buying at company stores. Perhaps the Southerners should have wizened up and given their slaves wages minus deductions for living arrangements, food, and clothing. If they wanted to go to another plantation they could have just beat them to death or have shot them.

At least he was consistent in shooting down recommendations that the draft be used, as that would be coercing men to fight against their will, much like slavery forced them to work. Oh wait, he didn't.

Lincoln was a tyrant and a bloody-handed hypocrite.

LOL..One specious argument after another.

It's a real stretch to compare Chattel Slavery with "Wage Slavery"... As bad as factory conditions were in the 1860's and other labor no one could sell your children or your wife...Grow up

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Factory slave or plantation slave, either one beats the hell out of what the bluebellies would do to you if you were an Indian.

How about forcing someone to fight? Forcing someone to take a minie ball to the gut is pretty immoral. Especially when it is not a matter of defense but rather to subjugate another people. And then hanging them if they leave or resist.

You're all over the map..That is because it's really hard to defend slavery. Your comparisons fall very short. IMHO

My my aren't we politically correct all of a sudden. The Indians did their fair share of butchery too:

On August 17, 1862, one young Dakota with a hunting party of three others killed five settlers while on a hunting expedition. That night a council of Dakota decided to attack settlements throughout the Minnesota River valley to try to drive whites out of the area. There has never been an official report on the number of settlers killed, although figures as high as 800 have been cited.

Over the next several months, continued battles pitting the Dakota against settlers and later, the United States Army, ended with the surrender of most of the Dakota bands.[4] By late December 1862, soldiers had taken captive more than a thousand Dakota, who were interned in jails in Minnesota. After trials and sentencing, 38 Dakota were hanged on December 26, 1862, in the largest one-day execution in American history. In April 1863, the rest of the Dakota were expelled from Minnesota to Nebraska and South Dakota. The United States Congress abolished their reservations.

I'm not defending slavery. I am defending the ideals of a government ruling with the consent of the people. Slavery would likely have died a natural death. Remember that Slavery in the Western Hemisphere did not end at Appomattox. Slavery lasted in Brazil until 1888. Remember that 38.5% of slaves were bound for Portuguese America while only 6.45% were destined for British North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#New_World_destinations). So this was not some drop in the bucket that can be easily dismissed.

The difference between the South winning vs the North is that the affects of slavery were going to be with us regardless, but at least it would have died out naturally without 600,000 deaths on account of it. I see no reason to believe that slavery would not have died out. With the North winning, the only ultimate check against the government ruling against without the consent of the people was removed. We are still suffering from the consequences of this today.

Well what about the fact that the South was going to expand the practice provided they won? If the South didn't plan on expanding it, I'd probably be more supportive of them. As it is though, I'm not convinced that slavery would have died out if the Confederacy won, at least not for much longer.

Well what about the fact that the South was going to expand the practice provided they won? If the South didn't plan on expanding it, I'd probably be more supportive of them. As it is though, I'm not convinced that slavery would have died out if the Confederacy won, at least not for much longer.

"Fact"?? According to the source you quote above, a "hint" and a "could" hardly constitute a viable plan agreed upon by a body powerful enough to actually implement it.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Well what about the fact that the South was going to expand the practice provided they won? If the South didn't plan on expanding it, I'd probably be more supportive of them. As it is though, I'm not convinced that slavery would have died out if the Confederacy won, at least not for much longer.

"Fact"?? According to the source you quote above, a "hint" and a "could" hardly constitute a viable plan agreed upon by a body powerful enough to actually implement it.

Exactly. It is a fact that Brazil ended slavery in 1888. It is unlikely that the South would have retained slavery, especially if they desired continued trade with Great Britain.

More than likely, if Lincoln had been conciliatory rather than signing the death sentences of 600,000 men, the South would have begged to be re-admitted to the Union after Great Britain got cotton production up and going in Egypt and India. After enough men died I don't think there was any going back. But if the deep south had broken off, they would have stagnated or come back.

If it meant the South expanding slavery into Latin America, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, tearing the nation apart and delaying Civil Rights and liberties by at least 100 years, I'd genocide them and feel no remorse.

I'm not saying the Union was perfect either, but they were sure of a heck a lot better than the South. I mean, hey, it's either us or them.

You do know there were still slaves in the North throughout the CW, right? New Jersey freed its last slave after the War ended. This idea that the Northern people/soldiers were these righteous warriors fighting to free slaves is revisionist nonsense. You tell your average yankee soldier that he was spending years away from home to go bleed out on some battlefield in Virgina to free african slaves and he would have thrown down his weapon and gone home.

As for your genocide comment, I'll chalk that up to youthful exuberance/ignorance.

The economy of the South was totally dependent upon slave labor. Nothing close to that situation existed in the North.. Feudalism had it's day, time to move on.

It no longer existed in the North because of Industrialization, not because your average Northerner was any less racist then your average southerner.

I am a native northerner who now lives in the south. I can tell you for certain that even today there seems to be more racism up North then down here. Some of the jokes and slurs that were regular fare back home are nowhere to be heard here.

And ??

The North had moved into the modern age. The South was stuck in feudalism.

It was also clear the even during the Revolution 80 years before while the North was still very agrarian, they had a better vision of the future and knew slavery was inconsistent with our founding ideals. They deliberately put aside freeing the slaves knowing they would lose the Southern colonies and were determined to stay focused and get rid of the British.

The South was happy to try and get the British to come back and help them... Their Treason couldn't be more clear.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Well what about the fact that the South was going to expand the practice provided they won? If the South didn't plan on expanding it, I'd probably be more supportive of them. As it is though, I'm not convinced that slavery would have died out if the Confederacy won, at least not for much longer.

"Fact"?? According to the source you quote above, a "hint" and a "could" hardly constitute a viable plan agreed upon by a body powerful enough to actually implement it.

Exactly. It is a fact that Brazil ended slavery in 1888. It is unlikely that the South would have retained slavery, especially if they desired continued trade with Great Britain.

More than likely, if Lincoln had been conciliatory rather than signing the death sentences of 600,000 men, the South would have begged to be re-admitted to the Union after Great Britain got cotton production up and going in Egypt and India. After enough men died I don't think there was any going back. But if the deep south had broken off, they would have stagnated or come back.

But if the deep south had broken off, they would have stagnated or come back.

Speculation. Not admissible

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Well what about the fact that the South was going to expand the practice provided they won? If the South didn't plan on expanding it, I'd probably be more supportive of them. As it is though, I'm not convinced that slavery would have died out if the Confederacy won, at least not for much longer.

"Fact"?? According to the source you quote above, a "hint" and a "could" hardly constitute a viable plan agreed upon by a body powerful enough to actually implement it.

You should know that the South wanted to expand slavery into the Western Territories. The question of expansion was the very issue that started the War.. You can look it up

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Quotes, eh? Here's one that shows the liar favored secession until he wanted re-election:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement."

From Lincoln’s Published Response to Horace Greeley, 1862"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The War Between the States was NOT about slavery, but money and power.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Quotes, eh? Here's one that shows the liar favored secession until he wanted re-election:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement."

From Lincoln’s Published Response to Horace Greeley, 1862"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The War Between the States was NOT about slavery, but money and power.

Thank you, this rather confirms my suspicion that the Civil War's causation lay not in simplistic and dishonest contrasts between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, neatly falling either side of the Mason-Dixon Line. In this forum as might be natural given the Civil War's is recent history and the painful aftermath that it is understandable that passions are raised.

I also note in reflecting on Lincoln's words and considering the earlier struggle for American Independence that why was one struggle legitimate and another a heinous crime.

1. No one (except the Klan) has accepted that storyline in decades. 2. Northerners enjoyed that movie just as much as Southerners. In fact, the Klan's ranks swelled in the North after the release of that movie. In Nebraska, they lynched Malcolm X's father. In Indiana, by 1925 over half the elected members of the Indiana General Assembly, the Governor of Indiana, and many other high-ranking officials in local and state government were members of the Klan. There goes your "exhibit", Mr. Man.

Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America." ~Scots-Irish saying

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Quotes, eh? Here's one that shows the liar favored secession until he wanted re-election:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement."

From Lincoln’s Published Response to Horace Greeley, 1862"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The War Between the States was NOT about slavery, but money and power.

Check the date, it's 1848 so what you mean by "Re Election" is re election to congress not the Presidency.

Lincoln was a politician.. You can look it up

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

"Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and whoever holds to the one, must despise the other."

A. Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854

Quotes, eh? Here's one that shows the liar favored secession until he wanted re-election:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement."

From Lincoln’s Published Response to Horace Greeley, 1862"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The War Between the States was NOT about slavery, but money and power.

Thank you, this rather confirms my suspicion that the Civil War's causation lay not in simplistic and dishonest contrasts between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, neatly falling either side of the Mason-Dixon Line. In this forum as might be natural given the Civil War's is recent history and the painful aftermath that it is understandable that passions are raised.

I also note in reflecting on Lincoln's words and considering the earlier struggle for American Independence that why was one struggle legitimate and another a heinous crime.

Bourgeoisie written history loves to have people think events are about the personality of the Leader. I suggest these huge events are much more about the objective conditions then personality traits or prejudices or political machinations of the Leader.

The Civil War was about completing the American Revolution and moving past feudalism where it still existed and ending chattel slavery. It set the stage for further industrialization and all that comes with the modern age. The old system got swept into the dustbin of history..

« Last Edit: July 14, 2013, 07:15:36 PM by Marc1152 »

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Although I am a Southerner, I greatly respect the bravery and accomplishments of the 1st Minnesota that day even if my ancestors' side lost the battle and eventually the war. There were a lot of brave and good men on both sides.

Although I am a Southerner, I greatly respect the bravery and accomplishments of the 1st Minnesota that day even if my ancestors' side lost the battle and eventually the war. There were a lot of brave and good men on both sides.

Ditto.. As a Northerner I greatly respect the bravery and endurance of the Confederate soldier and also the great skill of their officer corp.

While re enacting seems silly sometimes, it does give you a good idea of what the ordinary soldier went through. even if it is just a small peek.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

The Klan was and is inseparable from the general trend of romanticizing the antebellum South. For obvious reasons, in recent decades, many Confederate revivalists want to distance themselves from the Klan. Overt racism is no longer fashionable. They even invent fables about Confederate abolitionists, as if, if the Confederacy had won, slavery would have been abolished soon after. Thankfully, all this nonsense will come to naught- just more whimpering from the dustbin.

Quote

2. Northerners enjoyed that movie just as much as Southerners. In fact, the Klan's ranks swelled in the North after the release of that movie. In Nebraska, they lynched Malcolm X's father. In Indiana, by 1925 over half the elected members of the Indiana General Assembly, the Governor of Indiana, and many other high-ranking officials in local and state government were members of the Klan. There goes your "exhibit", Mr. Man.

I am well aware of the existence of Northern Klansmen. I live in Pennsylvania, mind you. If you polled those Northern Klansmen as to how many of them would have supported the Confederacy, you would get a result somewhere in the vicinity of 100%. Nice try though.

Something else I've noticed is an attempt to divert attention from Confederate racism by pointing out the failings of Lincoln, as if this were relevant. Yes, Lincoln was a politician, with all the opportunism and hypocrisy that might entail. Likewise, Cyrus the Great had his own reasons for "liberating" Israel, yet Isaiah hails him as an instrument of God (and even calls him "messiah").

« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 01:45:04 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Confederate 'racism' as an outsider sounds a little like an avoidance of an uncomfortable reality, the wider prejudice against people of colour which continued well beyond the American Civil War. As I have previously commented the notion of them baddies, us goodies is a little too simplistic for me to buy. Example, institutional discrimination in the US Forces right up to World War ll. Criticising the Confederacy is perhaps a cop out and diversion away from a wider American issue of wide spread racial discrimination? A scapegoat.

Sadly, such issues have and do dog us on the other side of the pond too.

Sorry, can't view youtube on this computer . I still don't understand what the phrase "rabid self-hagiography of the Southern partisans" means. And, why is it rabid?

I don't know what it means either, but it sure sounds important!

Yes, it does. Very much so. To sound important is of the essence here.

Personally, I believe that the expropriation of cultural reproduction is homologous with the invention of the teleological narrative.

Well, done, Grasshopper!! The import of what you understate so glibly and eloquently is without parallel. Verily, those are words that come from the keyboard of one whose importance is mystagogically underrated.

« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 03:24:09 PM by J Michael »

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

Sorry, can't view youtube on this computer . I still don't understand what the phrase "rabid self-hagiography of the Southern partisans" means. And, why is it rabid?

I don't know what it means either, but it sure sounds important!

Yes, it does. Very much so. To sound important is of the essence here.

Personally, I believe that the expropriation of cultural reproduction is homologous with the invention of the teleological narrative.

Well, done, Grasshopper!! The import of what you understate so glibly and eloquently is without parallel. Verily, those are words that come from the keyboard of one whose importance is mystagogically underrated.

I suspected you would state as much. Unfortunately, the wide-ranging study of the relationship between the linguistic construction of the specular economy and the assertion of the 'mystagogically underrated' may seem impressive to the uninitiated. I would state rather the formation of the hidden rehearses the conceptual logic of narrative authenticity.

Sorry, can't view youtube on this computer . I still don't understand what the phrase "rabid self-hagiography of the Southern partisans" means. And, why is it rabid?

I don't know what it means either, but it sure sounds important!

Yes, it does. Very much so. To sound important is of the essence here.

Personally, I believe that the expropriation of cultural reproduction is homologous with the invention of the teleological narrative.

Well, done, Grasshopper!! The import of what you understate so glibly and eloquently is without parallel. Verily, those are words that come from the keyboard of one whose importance is mystagogically underrated.

I suspected you would state as much. Unfortunately, the wide-ranging study of the relationship between the linguistic construction of the specular economy and the assertion of the 'mystagogically underrated' may seem impressive to the uninitiated. I would state rather the formation of the hidden rehearses the conceptual logic of narrative authenticity.

If only you would have substituted the word "unimportant" for "uninitiated" above, you would have demonstrated attainment of true mastery of the matter at hand. Then you will have achieved true importance. When you achieve that state, all else will be vanity of vanities.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian